The Manhattan Beach City Council early Wednesday delayed approving a slew of new building requirements vetted over two years to help thwart bulky development in town.

After reviewing the controversial restrictions for several hours and listening to testimony from more than a dozen residents, the council decided around 1a.m. to pick up the conversation again next month.

“It’s not a good time to be making these decisions right now,” Mayor Jim Aldinger said of the late hour.

Manhattan’s most recent assault on so-called mansionization – the phenomenon of replacing smaller dwellings with large homes – was launched in 2005, when a committee began researching ways to keep new buildings to the size and scale of existing development in town.

The ordinances proposed Tuesday were the product of more than 30 public meetings and study sessions stretched over two years, said Laurie Jester, a senior planner for the city.

The new building codes were designed with four goals: increase setbacks and open space, limit lot mergers, encourage retention of smaller homes, and allow ancillary buildings on adjacent, commonly owned lots.

Here’s a look at just a few of the proposed changes:

Lots zoned as single-family residential in beach-adjacent areas must retain as open space at least 15 percent of the buildable floor area – but not less than 220 square feet.

Decks and balconies, currently not allowed, would be permitted above a second or third story if they are adjacent to living areas and meet a series of setback requirements.

No more than two lots of standard size when originally subdivided could be merged, but with some exceptions.

Area 3 is nearly the entire coastal, west side of town from the southern border to about 38th Street, bound by The Strand and Valley Drive.

Area 4 consists of El Porto, bounded roughly by 45th and 38th streets, The Strand and Crest Drive.

Of all the anti-mansionization provisions, lot mergers apparently are one of the most controversial for a city with some residents wealthy enough to build giant homes stretched across two or more contiguous lots.

The council in April temporarily banned the practice completely, and the mansionization committee and Planning Commission could not agree on how to deal with lot mergers as they worked to develop new building requirements, Jester said.

“Some people said you shouldn’t merge at all,” she said. “Trying to find a balance of those very different opinions is probably the reason this took so long.”

Some residents who waited hours to speak early Wednesday morning urged the Council to approve the building requirements.

“This is an effective combination of instruments and requirements that reduces bulk,” said Paul Gross, a resident who helped develop the proposed ordinances. “This package is as good as you’re going to get in a long time.”

The City Council is set Feb. 5 to vote on the ordinances. All of the proposed regulations are available on the city’s Web site,